Monday, June 11, 2012

William Jefferson STFU Clinton

Oh boy, Bill is back! That’s right, former President Bill “trailer-park ten-dollar-bill dragger, depends-what-‘is’-means” Clinton, and he’s talking up a storm. And as you would expect, he’s causing Obama all kinds of problems. Ha ha.

So get this. . . some fool in the Obama Administration apparently decided to let Bill Clinton act as a campaign surrogate. They either knew nothing about Bill or they have decided that the country would be better off with Romney as president. And to no one’s great surprise, Bill has gone off half-cocked all over the place.

First, Billy Boy forgot whose side he was on and he praised Mitt Romney’s “sterling business career.” The timing on this couldn’t have been worse because Obama was already struggling to explain why his attacks on Bain Capital were appropriate, were relevant, and didn’t make him a socialist. . . like Rick Santorum.

Then Bill said that he would extend the Bush tax cuts until 2013, i.e. until after the election. This was both deeply cynical and it flew right in the face of Obama’s sworn opposition to extending those tax cuts. Clinton has since had to apologize for saying what he truly believed. . . an apology he delivered with the usual self-aggrandizement and a chuckle.

In and of themselves these statements wouldn’t be that bad, except Clinton’s supposed to be representing Obama and his timing couldn’t have been worse. Indeed, the timing is horrible because Obama’s campaign has been flailing. They haven’t been able to find anything to use to promote Obama or to tear down Romney. To the contrary, everything they’ve tried has blown up in their faces. In many ways, Obama has become the Coyote to Romney’s Roadrunner. And having Elmer Pudd shooting off his mouth isn’t helping. Every news cycle that gets wasted with Clinton contradicting one of Obama’s policies or the White House trying to explain away Clinton’s latest gaff, or with Bill trying to remind voters that he was a better President that Bush or Obama (“Remember me? I'm the only guy that gave you four surplus budgets out of the eight I sent.”), has been another precious news cycle wasted as Obama struggles to gain traction. Moreover, rather that focusing on Romney, the left has become obsessed now with trying to figure out if Bill is doing this intentionally to hurt Obama or what his real motives could be. And whether the public pays attention to the specifics or not, it’s obvious this is blue-on-blue fire, and that makes Obama’s campaign look disorganized, dis-unified and endangered.

So why is Clinton doing this? Some speculate this is an attempt to bring the Democratic Party back from the class warfare rhetoric which will doom it. I doubt that because Clinton has show no interest in helping the Democratic Party.

Others speculate this is payback for Obama beating Hillary (and Obama’s repeated humiliation of her, like his joke about her drunk-texting him). Could be. Some speculate Clinton wants Obama to lose so Hillary can rise up and run for President again. That doesn’t really make a lot of sense though. For one thing, Hillary looks horrible and I don’t just mean physically. She’s been the butt of jokes now and has no public achievements to show for her time on Team Obama. Plus, she’s been close enough to Obama to be tarred with his failure if he loses. Not to mention, she’ll never beat Andrew Cuomo, who I suspect will easily be the nominee in 2020 anyway.

Sure, these could all be his motives. But for my money, it’s much more likely Clinton is doing this to make the one person he truly loves happy: himself. By talking up his own administration and by contrasting himself with Obama (and Bush), Clinton makes sure that he’s remembered as the last “great” President. . . remember how good it was under ME, everybody? Indeed, he wouldn’t want an Obama success to stain his legacy.

Obama should have known this before he choose Clinton. Asking Clinton to act as your spokesman is like hiring Narcissus himself. But apparently Obama isn’t good at knowing things which every other American knows. . . like the number of states. So I guess Bill Clinton was just a mystery to him. Dopehead.

Finally, there was a fascinating article this weekend where some leftist AP hack tried to make all this pain go away by claiming that conservatives once hated Clinton but now praise him. Gee, I guess we’re hypocrites or something? Wrong. I do indeed have some good things to say about Clinton, but they hardly qualify as praise. My “respect” for Clinton goes a little something like this: he was smart enough to realize that his own beliefs weren’t selling, so he learned to sit back, let the Republicans do their thing and then take credit for their actions. That’s hardly high praise. That’s a bit like saying Hitler helped millions of Russians see Germany.

So what do you think Clinton is up to? Should Obama be worried? Should we? And what should Obama do about him?

Jed, I have seen nothing which suggests to me that Clinton really wants Hillary to be president. Chelsea sure, but not Hillary. I think it's all about not being overshadowed. And I think that's what going on here too. He's having a great time in the spotlight and he's not going to give that up any time soon.

I think he's doing it intentionally. There's no way he doesn't know what Obama's position is on these issues. He's doing it to draw attention to himself and I think you're right he wants to see Obama go down so he can still be the only re-elected Democrats since FDR.

I can't imagine why Obama gave Billy Jeff such a long leash. He must have thought he had the party behind him firmly enough that Clinton would know to stay on message--but after the past month, why on earth would he think that?

DUQ, That is the key right there -- Clinton is the only Democrats to be re-elected since FDR/Truman, and I strongly suspect he doesn't want Obama taking that away from him. It's like the Miami Dolphins celebrating each year when the last undefeated team loses.

T-Rav, That's what I can't figure out unless Clinton assured them he would be good, or they decided they really needed his popularity (particularly with donors), or they just didn't know any better... 51 states, Polish death camps, and all?

Clinton is a guaranteed media circus and as usually, he brings lots of clowns.

Excellent choices. My favorite moment is when he gave us the Republican Congress. My least favorite moment is a report of one of his a-hole staffers who got pissy with a General in the first week of the White House.

Doc, I vaguely remember that, something about a general holding a door open for a female staffer or something and she shit all over him. I think Clinton's chief of staff even had to apologize, if I remember correctly.

I'm with T-Rav, I have no idea how anyone on Obama's team could think this wasn't going to happen. Clinton can't avoid controversy, he simply can't. And of course he was going to take the opportunity to make himself seem more important.

Ellen, I can only assume they thought they had assurances from Clinton or they felt they needed him no what the risk, or they just aren't very good at campaigning. In fact, Team Obama has proven to be pretty miserable at politics all around. It's one thing to sell an empty suit to the public in an election against an idiot who wants to lose (2008), but it's quite another to have to defend a record and deal with an angry public and a worked up opposition.

Plus, Romney is proving to be quite politically astute and extremely good in his attacks, so Obama could be becoming desperate. In fact, Romney is gaining momentum everywhere these days.

Ellen, I was none too pleases with the choice of Dole. And while we're on that point, let's be clear -- Clinton never did win 50%+ of the vote. He won because of H.Ross Perot and his hatred of George Bush Sr.

tryanmax, I get the sense he's loving this. And yeah, he knows walking back a statement means nothing. And in his world, all it really means is a second chance to go on the talk shows and explain how great he was.

The idea that he's trying to center Obama is being pushed around and it's mainly based on Clinton having headed the Democratic Leadership Council, who were trying to pull the Democrats back from the socialist brink.

But I think that's too complex of an explanation to make sense. I think it's more likely he's just trying to talk himself up and Obama down.

Clinton is THE consummate politician and he knows exactly what he is doing. There is nothing that Clinton has ever done or said that was not on purpose. Of course he overshot his popularity with Monica Lewinsky. So he has to be doing what he is doing on purpose as payback.

However, the Clintons have more to lose if Obama loses than even Obama has. They will be out of power. Romney will not allow Billy Jeff to be "Assistant President" and no one will want his official opinion anymore. Remember that moment when Obama ceded the WH podium to Billy Jeff to explain the hard stuff 'cause Michelle needed Barack to go to a Christmas Party? Romney may solicit it privately, but not publicly like Obama does. THough I would not be surprised if Bill changed parties just so he could try.

Bev, I almost spit out my drink when I read your suggestion of Billy Boy switching parties just to give it a try! LOL!

Actually, if there was ever a high-profile party switcher, he should be it because he was always on the far-right end of what is acceptable in the Democratic party and they've been moving a lot further left since he left office.

That said, you are right -- Bill is the consummate politician and he knows exactly what he's doing. He doesn't say things by mistake. I am absolutely convinced he did this to get attention to himself.

In terms of having more to lose, don't discount the idea that if Obama goes down in flames, then the only Democrat left who hasn't been defeated and sent home in disgrace is Clinton. Plus, he and his supporters could easily sell the idea that "if only we'd picked Hillary, none of this would have happened."

Obviously, that's just a guess, but I wouldn't be surprised if that was what Clinton was thinking.

P.S. Bev, I really think the fly in the ointment for Hillary will be Andrew Cuomo. He's a prince-ling who has been working hard on getting a solid reputation nationally as an efficient, sane moderate. The only question will be if he can win over the grassroots lunatics. But I think he can.

Ellen, Do you know what the effect would be on the Democratic Party if such a popular president on their side suddenly switched parties? That would be the end of the Democrats and I'll bet it would finally swing over the remaining "flyover" states which still believe they are supporting the FDR Democrats.

Andrew and Bev, I agree, the idea of Clinton suddenly switching parties and putting a stake through the heart of "Obama 2012"* is wonderful to think about. But I think it's important to keep in mind that Clinton wasn't exactly the centrist he's sometimes represented as being. Welfare reform was kinda forced on him by the GOP Congress, and, lest we forget, it was "HillaryCare" before it was "ObamaCare." If not for the Republican takeover in '94, I suspect Clinton's record and legacy would be far different than it is. So no, I think the chances of Billy Jeff joining the GOP or even deliberately helping it out are precisely nil.

*When I say "put a stake through the heart," I mean that in a figurative, not literal sense. My words were not intended to incite anyone to violence against any member of the Obama campaign, and I pre-emptively denounce myself.

Andrew - Yes, Andrew Cuomo is a Democratic prince-ling and he most definitely will run in 2016. He will certainly be reelected as Governor in 2014. The fly in the ointment with Cuomo is that he is living with (and not married to) a Food Network star. They have had the good sense not to live in the Governor's Mansion, but I am not sure how that would work out with the White House. I like Cuomo, but I thought the Dems hated dynasties?

T-Rav, I agree with that, hence my parting thought in the article. Clinton sold himself as a moderate, but came to town as a big time leftist progressive until that blew up on him. Even then, everything the Republicans did had to be done over his objections.

Where he turned out to be good was in being lucky that the Republicans put in place good policies and he was smart enough to recognize those and claim credit for them after the fact.

On your point about your words not being an incitement to violence, I offer no such disclaimer. And I coincidentally say that it would be a real shame if someone jammed a dozen donuts holes up the rear ends of our Democratic friends. We could call it "holing." Bonus points for using the 48 pack! :)

Bev, Throughout my lifetime, the Dems have worshiped dynasties. Everything from father son teams like the Gores to the Kennedy clan, to this praying for a Clinton dynasty, etc. Everywhere you look they love their dynasties. And Cuomo's dad was huge in Democratic circles back in the day.

I'm sure they can work out the Food Network issue, after all, the Democrats love celebrity more than anything.

Clinton, is either really past his time, (i.e. just doesn't think as straight as he did. Which to me, still wasn't great anyways, as it irritated me how much of a lack of decorum Clinton showed as president. Anyways, I think he's really tripping up, and is really bringing out his ego when supposedly trying to help Obama.

As for Obama, my best thought is that he runs under the impression that essentially by making a former opponent work for you, you've gained an asset. However, this isn't entirely the case: Sometimes you should just settle with the truce, not with trying to consider your general opponent an asset, whether your choice was a former opponent or not, you vet the individual first, because while working for you will likely calm some of their opposition, it doesn't account for the culpability of the former opponent in question.

Moral of the Story: call it a truce, only take on a former opponent as support if you know that they compliment you in how they work. It's important that Romney and the other GOP candidates stay on this principle as well.

obiwan, That has always been Obama's strategy, to absorb former opponents with jobs and then to make them quietly disappear. He did it with Hillary to great effect and a couple more before that. In each case, he basically wiped out their futures by sending them to some seemingly important job and then taking away their responsibilities.

With a guy like Bill Clinton, however, the problem is both that he's a bigger personality than Obama and he's a loose canon. So taking him on is foolhardy.

On Romney, Romney's already shown that he understands this and seems to want nothing to do with the other candidates. Not only don't they fit the image he is trying to present, but there's just too much ego there to control. So he's really treated them like they are now irrelevant to him and that's the right strategy.

"And I coincidentally say that it would be a real shame if someone jammed a dozen donuts holes up the rear ends of our Democratic friends. We could call it "holing." Bonus points for using the 48 pack! :)"

T-Rav, Not true. They just hate the Bushes. They love the Kennedys, the Byrds, the Gores, the Udalls, the Cuomos, and many more. You see it all the time where they love the idea of multiple family members running back generations, especially when they cross state lines.

In fact, didn't the Democrats in your own state run a woman (name escapes me -- maybe even McCaskill) just because they liked her dead husband so much?

Andrew, it was Mrs. Jean Carnahan, wife of our former governor, whose family is basically Missouri's version of the Kennedys. Their daughter was our Secretary of State for a long time, and their son or nephew was (until this year) a Congressman, so. Anyway, yeah, he died in a plane crash while campaigning for a Senate seat, and someone got a loophole in the election laws that she could take his seat for him if he "won," and there were enough idiots in the state that he did win, so she got to be Senator. So technically, we voted for a dead guy, and then his widow got appointed. Yeah.

last time I suggested that Commentaramans were naughty, it added fuel to the fire, so I shall refrain.

As for Pres. Billy, I am not sure that anyone's higher brain functions were engaged in this plan. It's been hysterical to watch, but I have wondered if TOTUS's speech selector got stuck on 1993 when he was making his "please help me" late night calls. It's sort of like Warren - please do not let the Dems figure out how to stop the carnage!!!

At least, unlike Holder's horrors, Billy and Fauxcahontus aren't actually influencing policy and application of the "law". Holder's freakshow needs to be curtained asasp! But for the other clowns under and around the big top - the show must go on!

T-Rav, Jean Carnahan, that's the one! Sadly, every state has stories like this. Not quite the voting for a dead guy to get a widow thing, but similar political families who get support even after they die and end up using all kinds of dirty and weird tricks to stay elected.

Yeah, I'm with you, please don't let the Democrats figure out how to stop the carnage on any of these things. This is fun to watch and it's a self-inflicted wound, which is even better.

And I also agree that no one's higher brain functions were doing their things when they selected Billy Boy to take over this duty -- too much dope smoking by all concerned probably. Maybe I would let Bill read a prepared speech or two, but I'd never let him verbally free style. That's just asking for trouble.

My worst Clinton moment is that people now believe he was a great president. He wasn't. He was a horrible president until the Republicans took away his powers. Then he was just a decent figurehead. And even then, he managed to embarrass us as a nation.

And yeah, I agree that it's annoying that Clinton gets overrated. But there's nothing you can do about it. The most frustrating thing is the claim about the surpluses, which was only achieved by taking the deficit "off the books."

NightcawlerER: Clinton isn't exactly like the Kennedys, since he's still alive to remind people what a jerk he was. The advantage of JFK, RFK and Teddy is that they're dead. No more waitress sandwiches. Ollie Stone and the MSM can handle the PR and memory holes no sweat.

If OBama loses this election then Hillary will not in the least be harmed by her closeness to the ONE in 2016. This is assuming Democrats do what Democrats do to those who fail them....they eat their own. Obama will no longer have the bright light in the stage and they will all talk of how he has lost touch.

Hillary will them put out the spin she was really the one to "get" Bin LAden and the Clintons will do what they do best...Campaign Away....

Indi, I think she would be hurt if she campaigned for him. But you are right, if she hides away and let Obama go down, the Democrats will eat their own, as always, and that will be all of Obama's people. That actually clears the deck for the Clinton people to make a comeback if they play it right.